Brady Campaign calls for ban on HUNTING ammunition.

In the wake of two mass shootings in two weeks, it is no surprise that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is calling for more gun control.

They start by falsely claiming that the now expired 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban could have prevent both shootings. Not true, as both the weapons used in the shootings in Omaha and Colorado would not have been banned under the provisions of 1994 ban. The WASR AK-47 "look-alike" gun used in the Nebraska shooting is a direct unintended consequence of the federal ban, having been cosmetically altered to comply with the 1994 law. This is a typical reaction to such shootings and is to be expected.

What is of a greater concern to ever big-game hunter in the county is the following statement post on the Brady Center website:

"Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor [pdf]. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons."

Not content to go after assault weapons, now they are going after any (all) bullet that can penetrate body armor.

And as usual, they're trying to sway public opinion with inaccurate, misleading, and provably false information.

In his blog, Brady bunch leader Paul Helmke references a National Institute of Justice report on soft body armor protection, but incorrectly identifies the type of bullet used in the shooting. The report references the 7.62x51 NATO round (.308 Winchester) in the testing, but the round used in the Omaha shooting was a 7.62x39 Russian. He also neglected to inform his readers that the test he refers to is for soft body armor, which is designed to stop handgun rounds only. It was never intended to stop rifle rounds. This is a telling mistake, as the Brady Center doesn't care about providing accurate information - only hysterical information.

Almost every single popular round used for big-game in this country can penetrate the same four levels of soft body armor.

Let's compare the 3 most popular cartridge choices for Whitetail Deer hunting: [see http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article4113.html for the ballistics charts on Remington cartridges]

As you can see the three most popular rounds for deer hunting all have a higher muzzle velocity/energy compared to the 7.62 Russian. Which means that all three can penetrate all but level III hard body armor, even the 30-30 Winchester whom most consider the minimum acceptable round for deer hunting is more powerful than the 7.62 used in the Omaha Mall shooting. What does this mean for the average deer/big game hunter? It means that despite years of protestations that "we aren't advocating banning guns/ammo used by hunters" they are finally showing their true goal is to ban the private ownership of all firearms in the United States. It might be helpful to remember the following:

The Brady Campaign's original name was Handgun Control Inc. The founder, the late Pete Shields, made his goals clear in an interview in with the New Yorker Magazine in 1976:

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily -given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of hand-guns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."

It seems that they have expanded their stated position of banning handguns to include assault weapons and now hunting firearms and ammunition. What you call a deer rifle, they refer to it as an intermediate sniper rifle, which they define as "any rifle with an optical sight making it capable of shooting at distances of 100 meters or greater". For those who thought anti-gunners were only after "assault rifles" now they want to ban your granddad's deer gun. Please join local and national pro-gun organizations and help spread the word about the latest attempt by the gun-grabbers to disarm law-abidingly gun owners whose only "crime" is to own firearms for hunting or self-defense.

Adapted from an article at http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article4113.html.[/b]

If you enjoyed reading about "Brady Campaign calls for ban on HUNTING ammunition." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Eric F

December 30, 2007, 08:44 AM

you know its funny that every "assault weapon" I ever owned was bought durring the ban Also interesting I bought ALL of my highcap mags during that same time it was a great ban worked for me

"any rifle with an optical sight making it capable of shooting at distances of 100 meters or greater"
*** I can do that with iron sights another great thing they have going there

RoadkingLarry

December 30, 2007, 09:10 AM

Maybe, just maybe this will wake up the hard core hunters who have had no interest in this issue in the past because they "knew" that THEY were not after their hunting rifles.

jlday70

December 30, 2007, 09:22 AM

Since this is such a large board I am sure it has been said before, but as gun entusiests we need to stop using the buzz words. Phrases like "Assault Weapon, High capacity, and the like" are words made up by the gun grabbers to make guns seem more evil. for example a 15 round magazine for a Glock 22 isn't "high capacity" it is standard capacity.

As long as gun owners keep using our enemies buzz words they will always be a tool against the RTKBA.

What I propose as a gun owner and enthusiasts, is when ever you hear these things being used correct the person using them and explain that the media and the brady campaign use things like this to forward an anti-gun/ anti-freedom agenda.

General Geoff

December 30, 2007, 09:30 AM

I substitute the term assault weapon with Evil Black Rifle. Definitely our term, not theirs. It's too silly to be used as a political buzzword. :)

JohnL2

December 30, 2007, 09:30 AM

I understand what the Brady people are trying to do. But misinformation and demagogue pleas are not going to benefit their cause in the long run.
You would think they would understand this.
Why can't they try working with the NRA on crime prevention?
The Brady Campaign credibility is like a colander to me.

The Deer Hunter

December 30, 2007, 09:34 AM

I totally called this. Since they clearly see that spewing all that BS about assault guns with shoulder things that go up isn't working they have decided to move on to the not so scary looking but "super accurate to a mile, shoot through 4 car doors" hunting rifles.

230RN

December 30, 2007, 09:40 AM

What I propose as a gun owner and enthusiasts, is when ever you hear these things being used correct the person using them and explain that the media and the brady campaign use things like this to forward an anti-gun/ anti-freedom agenda.

More suggestions for substitutes?

I've used "Homeland Defense Rifle," and "Evil Black Rifle," but I am stuck for one for "high capacity maganzine." They hold what they hold.

(And, parenthetically, some poobah in Canada is now objecting to "Rambo-Style" knives.)
__________________
Go down to the office of your candidate. Volunteer to collate and staple literature, bring print jobs to the printer,

Eric F

December 30, 2007, 09:43 AM

we need to stop using the buzz words. Phrases like "Assault Weapon, High capacity, and the like"
When refrencing "their" terminology......
How are you suposed to accuratly make quotes and refrences if you dont use "their" words?
Sugestion please(BTW I get the black rifle thing) mostly in refrence to"magazines holding more than 10 rounds" aka highcap mags

looks like we are in the same boat here 230RN

308win

December 30, 2007, 09:45 AM

A magazine is a magazine is a magazine; just call'em that. If you need to be more descriptive call'em 30rd, 20 rd, etc. magazines.

jlday70

December 30, 2007, 09:50 AM

I've used "Homeland Defense Rifle," but I am stuck for one for "high capacity maganzine."

The point I am making is that the term is an anti-gun buzz word..:)

Since you ask though I usually call it what it is, either a standard capacity, or (# of) round magazine. as for the whole assault weapon thing like with the magazines I call it what it is, like "its a Bushmaster Car-15 Semi-automatic rifle"

I appologize for sounding argumentative, but I think the biggest thing working against us is mis-education of our society and mis-information..

jlday70

December 30, 2007, 09:52 AM

A magazine is a magazine is a magazine; just call'em that. If you need to be more descriptive call'em 30rd, 20 rd, etc. magazines.

I see we were thinking the same thing:)

jfh

December 30, 2007, 09:56 AM

"...How are you suposed to accuratly make quotes and refrences if you dont use "their" words?"

1. By careful construction of your own statement.

2. By the use of perjorative adjectives and adverbs, as long as the argument made is appropriately rigorous.

As an example--personally, I usually point out the fact that the term "assault weapon" is a political definition that is not part of the standard firearms lexicon.

For an exercise, try re-stating the phrase "Gun Show Loophole" in non-propangandistic terms.
.
.
.
The answer will come after you try this, class.

Jim H.

Wolfgang2000

December 30, 2007, 10:01 AM

First I think we all understand the Brady's main goal is to outlaw ALL firearms.

Second their argument is a old one. I was first used in the 80"s when they were trying to push the "Cop Killer Bullet" law. It effective baned a rounds that would penetrate a level 1 vest.

It's not just about hunting. Our number 1 weapon is our vote. The vote counts for more when there is solidarity.

"Just the facts". ;)

Eric F

December 30, 2007, 10:02 AM

The term highcap has been used by some of the most hard core pro gun types I have ever met. It is standard language all over my area and also in the competition sports ie idpa uspsa ipsc and Nc 3 gun. I see little if any reason to change the terminology. The fact is weather we use the term or not it still exists. kinda like a person that "does not beleive in guns" yet they are still here.
Now the term "Assault weapon" I can argue that all day

jlday70

December 30, 2007, 10:10 AM

The term highcap has been used by some of the most hard core pro gun types I have ever met. It is standard language all over my area and also in the competition sports ie idpa uspsa ipsc and Nc 3 gun. I see little if any reason to change the terminology. The fact is weather we use the term or not it still exists. kinda like a person that "does not beleive in guns" yet they are still here.
Now the term "Assault weapon" I can argue that all day.

I can't argue with ya there it is and will always be used by most people. I see High cap as anything above the factory highest number magazine, so I agree it is hard to make an arguement against that term. While I can say that when it is used by the hard core gun enthusiasts it is understood. When it is used by a person who knows absolutely nothing about a gun. That is where the problem begins, and that is where I think we need to be making corrections.

these terms amungst us here on the board are usually used sarcastically, because we know what they mean.

230RN

December 30, 2007, 10:12 AM

The posts are running fast and furious here, but let's see what we can do.

1. I did not take your remarks as contentious, jday70.

2. I've long argued that sematics are important, and the antis sure know that, but what defines "high capacity" besides just an arbitrary number?

Some revolvers nowadays have 8 round capacity and I had a .22 revolver once that held nine rounds. No one on our side of the fence would argue that these are "high capacity revolvers," but how do we counter the semantics of the term "high capacity magazines?" That's what my question really was.

It's like using the terms "high powered revolvers" or "high capacity revolvers." If the antis latch on to terms like that, how would we counter them semantically?

I've gone into the importance of sematic loading before, and while some folks want to just ignore semantic loadings, others have asked the same question.

So what substitute/counter for "high capacity magazines," in a semantic sense?

"...So what substitute/counter for "high capacity magazines," in a semantic sense?"

By even getting into a qualifying argument about magazine capacity, one is ceding the discussion to the antis' hypothesis: that the amount of ammunition available has a bearing on the (relative) danger of the firearm. So, simply eliminate the qualifier / adjuective--it's a "magazine".

I surely don't believe--and in fact I know--that the number of cartridges I have available makes me an accurate-deadly-undeadly-dangerous shooter. Does having a 30-round mag in your AK-47 make you more dangerous?

I absolutely stopped a gun-grabber's query cold about "those armor-piercing bullets" by simply saying: "What difference does the bullet make if a criminal is going to shoot someone?"

learn the grabber's arguments well: They truly impacted the political lexicon on firearms and have shaped it for well over twenty years, and it is now part of the American Psyche (collective unconscious). It will take a long time to reshape those assumptions.

Arguably, in today's political climate, even a commentary done from the a priori assumptions of the standard lexicon is a political statement--we've gotten that far out of whack in our perspective on this.

I think the best place to start is to simply start using the terms without the qualifiers. Revolvers are revolvers are revolvers....

Remember that the anti is arguing the political definitions of firearms. While you and I may wish to have a discussion of the relative (power) merits of a revolver chambered for 500 S&W versus .44 Magnum, that's an entirely different kind of discussion.

Jim H.

230RN

December 30, 2007, 10:41 AM

JTH:
By even getting into a qualifying argument about magazine capacity, one is ceding the discussion to the antis' hypothesis: that the amount of ammunition available has a bearing on the (relative) danger of the firearm.

Yes, yes, I'm sure we all agree on that point (and thanks for codifying it.)

But the question is, how do we avoid it or counter it?

How, in fact, do we go about re-shaping those assumptions?

What words shall we use?

What semantic loadings can we manipulate in our favor?

Robert Hairless

December 30, 2007, 11:12 AM

230RN

2. I've long argued that sematics are important, and the antis sure know that, but what defines "high capacity" besides just an arbitrary number?
...

Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy define "high capacity" and "assault weapon" and so on. Those are classifications based on judgments. You can't ever beat that approach and it has no objective meaning anyway.

What would you do if a doctor you've never met before said to you "Quick, nurse, hand me a high capacity syringe filled with Cortisone?"

What does have objective meaning is the system we've always used in the past: specify the maximum number of rounds that a magazine can hold.

Even if none of us had ever met previously there isn't one of us who wouldn't know the capacity of a 10- 20- or 30-round AR-15 magazine specified that way. But use classifications such as Low- Medium- or High-capacity and communication breaks down unless everyone has the same chart and refers to it.

The thing is that capacity specified in numbers doesn't lend itself to value judgments. Value judgments are what scare people. Sarah and Carolyn would have a relatively difficult time explaining why a 30-round magazine is more dangerous than a 20-round magazine, especially if the owner has the 30-round-capacity magazine loaded with only five rounds for zeroing the rifle. But call a 30-round magazine "high capacity" and it's easier to flummox people by befuddling everyone.

Politics aside, there's nothing to be gained by using classifications instead of numbers to describe magazines. It's confusing. Back to politics, that's why politicians use classifications instead of numbers: they're so much easier to play with.

I laughed so hard that tears came to my eyes when a neighbor told me about "the high speed chase" that took place on our street the other day. The street is posted for a 25 MPH speed limit but a wreckless teenager was pulled over by a patrol car behind him for doing about 30 MPH. It was indeed a "high speed chase." Fortunately no one was hurt. Everyone got to go home at the end of the day.

How do you counter it?

First, you don't use terms such as "High Capacity." Ever.

Second, you could do what I do when I'm in a conversation in which such a term is used. I react with honest confusion. "What is a 'High Capacity' magazine?" I've never encountered anyone who used that term who had an inkling of what it meant, so the response has always been "What do you mean?" I explain by asking "How much capacity is 'high' and what's 'normal'?" No one has ever been able to tell me. So I say, "If I don't know and you don't know, how could it possibly be important?"

I'm sure that there are many other possible questions. Sometimes people do get argumentative anyway. I usually agree with them and explain my own opposition to "High Capacity" personal vehicles, especially when they're owned by families with four people or less. I call them "Assault Vehicles." Nobody but the military needs an Assault Vehicle.

Don't get me started on Assault Cereal Boxes, Assault Fruit Cans, Assault Detergent Boxes, or Assault Educational Degrees. Nobody needs a B.A., M.A. or Ph.D. Them high faluting pieces of paper are meant to intimidate people and nothing more. Reedin, written, and 2 + 2 is good enough for everyone. I know.

antsi

December 30, 2007, 11:13 AM

This has been in the works for a long time.

I remember 2 or 3 years ago watching Ted Kennedy speechifying in the Senate about how we should ban .30-30 because it can penetrate soft body armor.

That is the new definition of "armor piercing." We have not heard the last of this one.

The scary thing is how you will see LEOs in the news standing up to support this kind of nonsense. I don't know whether they really believe this stuff, or whether they are just such political creatures they will say anything as long as it's in the party line.

Kimber1911_06238

December 30, 2007, 11:15 AM

+1 on waking up hunters. they aren't just going after the black rifles. they are going after the bolt action "sniper rifles" as well. To some they are hunting rifles, but if you think for one second that the anti's care about preserving your right to keep any guns you are sadly mistaken

the pistolero

December 30, 2007, 11:18 AM

More suggestions for substitutes?
I saw both of the following suggested here a while back:
1. Instead of "high-capacity magazines," why not just call them "normal-capacity"? Wasn't 15-18 rounds the normal capacity for most defensive sidearm mags (and 30 for most semi-auto rifle mags) before the AWB? I could be wrong...
2. Instead of "assault rifle," we could call it a general-purpose rifle, or Jeep rifle. :D

jfh

December 30, 2007, 11:22 AM

"...How, in fact, do we go about re-shaping those assumptions?
What words shall we use? What semantic loadings can we manipulate in our favor?

Well, there's a doctoral dissertation for someone.

Personally, I do reshape those assumptions in a number of ways--first, I avoid "arguments;" and above all, I present myself as caring and concerned, but rational and logical. (That is not a posture, BTW; I think it fits a personal description.)

Second, I usually give one example of the (current topic's) irrational hypothesis. Since I usually associate with people who think rationally as well as emotively, I may even catch them off guard with a statement that turns their assumptions on end--for example, I have found the phrase "gun control: the belief that a woman raped and strangled with her own hose is morally superior to a woman who defends herself with a firearm" to be useful in shifting the argument.

Note that I introduced several new assumptions into the discussion--items such as

1. Calling out their statments as a belief and by inference, not a fact.

2. Creating an implicit appeal to the (moral) authority of the Collective Unconscious--e.g., that people do have a right to live, to self-defense, and that such a hypothesis is not morally inferior to violence.

So, to summarize (all too soon), it seems to me we can shift the semantic loadings to our favor by using ironclad (well-constructed) suppositions that appeal to 'American Values' (and not the hollow political ones) and that also demonstrate the fallacy of the (antigun) supposition.

The nightmare--as demonstrated here, at THR in general and even in this thread--is that there are far too many pro-gun people who have been exposed only to the anti-gun perspective (courtesy of the MSM, etc., etc.) and for whom the reference to the broadest values of the American CU is simply missing. Hence, they see the term "assault weapon" as a 'real' definition, and not merely a political (and relatively new) definition--and then, because of the American CW of 'pragmatisim' resist NOT using it.

Personally, I believe that pro-gun people using antigun assumptions should be called out, and their arguments denigrated--and their ability to argue as well. But, that is not THR's position, so I won't do it here.

I'm going to bow out for now, simply because I want some other posters to present their rhetoric for this--and there are some here who are extraordinarily good at it. We need to hear from them.

addendum: While preparing this post, I see other posters got their comments on line as well--and I simply want to again call out the problem of using the standard firearms lexicon definitions to answer antigun statements without shifting the semantics: --In the political debate, rifles are rifles are rifles, and NOT subject to the parsing for "weapons", "semi-automatic," "sporting," "hunting," recreational, and the like. Anything else is a slippery slope. The place to parse in not on personal firearms--crew-served might be the beginning of that (and even that can be successfully argued if one takes a strict construction historical perspective of the Constitution.

Jim H.

Prince Yamato

December 30, 2007, 11:38 AM

Aww crap, now they're going after sniper rifles. It was one thing when I was able to purchase AWs, but sniper rifles are expensive. I guess I could always buy an SKS and put a scope on it...

papajohn

December 30, 2007, 11:44 AM

Does anyone remember a few years back when Sarah Brady's son was given a "Sniper Rifle" for Christmas.......by his parents? A scoped, bolt-action rifle, a 30-06 IIRC.

This whole debate is moot unless we can shift the focus from the weapons to the CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. I can go buy a gallon of gasoline, and a book of matches, and kill 100 people, very easily. There's nothing criminal about buying gasoline or possessing it, it's only a problem when it's used IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. Until we start dealing with criminals and criminal behavior nothing will get any better.

The point needs to be made, over and over, that this whole debate isn't about gun control. It's about People Control. And it's being done by the most power-hungry politicians out there.

How about if we make up some posters equating Sarah Brady with Hitler? That might get the media's attention. After all, they both favored gun control. So did Stalin, Pol Pot, and a thousand mass murderers. We should be screaming that from the rafters, and MAKE the media take a look at it.

As for jargon, two thoughts. "Cop-Killer Bullets" were banned long ago.......and they beat that phrase into our heads, even though NO COP WAS EVER KILLED WITH THEM.

If you say you're not worried about a ban on machine guns because you don't own any, remember this..........In 1986, Mario Biaggi got stun guns banned in New York BY CALLING THEM MACHINE-GUNS. If you can ban a machine gun, you can ban anything you CALL a machine gun. These are the tactics the anti's use, lots of fear-mongering and mis-information. We need to start being more vocal about their tactics, and get more aggressive about defending our rights, while we still have them!

Papajohn

12Bravo20

December 30, 2007, 11:49 AM

I guess I better hide my "sniper rifle" that I use to get them very very very dangerous squirrels with. Yes this should be a wake up call for all of the hunters that think that the government wouldn't come after their rifles.

fearless leader

December 30, 2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:I surely don't believe--and in fact I know--that the number of cartridges I have available makes me an accurate-deadly-undeadly-dangerous shooter. Does having a 30-round mag in your AK-47 make you more dangerous?

In their eyes, yes. You, as described above would have the capability to fire on up to 30 targets within a short time.

The antis think more along the line of over/under shotguns when they think of private ownership.

They are either ignorant or uneducated enough to realize that with the O/U SHOTGUN you could launch at least 8 projectiles per trigger squeeze, or say, #1 buck is about 27 projectiles per trigger squeeze at an intended target.

The large problem is media coverage. If they would stop saying what kind of gun was used in a hideous crime, maybe some loser that wants to be "famous" or "infamous" as it were, would not know how it was done.
(a little late for that now)

The first mass shooting I ever heard about was tower sniper in TX. It was many years later that I heard about a man using an AK in a shooting. Since then, it's all you hear about. The sale of AKs skyrocketed.

I am of the opinion that if they didn't tell you what he used, anyone out there thinking along those lines might have just tried it with a Carcano or something.

By the way, the next time you meet an Anti, ask him what law would have stopped the shooting he is worked up about, then ask him what he thinks might have happened if the BG wasn't the only armed individual there?

I have been doing that and the usaual answer is, "well we gotta do SOMETHING about the wrong people gettin' all these guns."

My neighbor is from CT and keeps spouting off about the Hollywood shooting.
Mis-informed as usual, he rants about how the BGs "killed all of those police." I asked him how many were killed that day, and he says he doesn't know, but a lot.
He doesn't believe me when I tell him the BGs were the only ones killed.:banghead:

Yes, some were shot, but the only ones killed were the BGs. They were fired on by privately owned EBRs, commandeered by police from a local gunshop. I heard one actually realized he wasn't going to make it and ended his own life. (Where were all of those ARMOR PIERCING rounds now reserved for police/military use the police were supposed to have?)

I have listened objectively to his point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my arse. :D

I have heard hollow points refered to by NBC as "cop killer" bullets, :banghead:by that "journalist":barf: that follows the cyber-pedophile craze. I think his name is Chris Hansen.

Never under estimate the power of liberals over stupid people in large numbers!

Gunnerpalace

December 30, 2007, 12:59 PM

Does anyone remember a few years back when Sarah Brady's son was given a "Sniper Rifle" for Christmas.......by his parents? A scoped, bolt-action rifle, a 30-06 IIRC

Typical :rolleyes:

That said I say we continue calling them EBR's

As for Hi-Caps use the ATF description "Large Capacity Feeding Device" It will confuse them.

OhioPaints

December 30, 2007, 01:20 PM

I would be wary of using the term "Homeland Defense Rifle".

"Homeland Defense" is a government run bureaucracy and they want all the power. "I'm from Washington and I'll make the decisions." IIRC, once FEMA got involved in Katrina, they prohibited volunteer workers from protecting themselves.

Perhaps better to use a term like American Defense Rifle or National Defense Rifle or even Militia Rifle :) I kind of like the last one, that way when someone responds "but you are not the militia", we can correct them.

Ken

308win

December 30, 2007, 01:59 PM

"Large Capacity Feeding Device"

Won't confuse Rosie

benEzra

December 30, 2007, 02:53 PM

It's a rifle. Pretending a civilian AK is somehow drastically different from a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle plays into the Bradyites' hands, IMHO.

armoredman

December 30, 2007, 03:04 PM

Pass this on to Zumbo, tell him it's time to get on the bandwagon, and get all his bolt-action-only buddies, too.

Nolo

December 30, 2007, 03:22 PM

There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons."
Sure there is. It's called resisting the government. Do you think we would have had the Revolution if we hadn't had military-style assault weapons?
By the way, "military-style assault weapons" is a misnomer. All weapons are "military-style", that's part of what makes a weapon a weapon. Second, what are weapons used for if not assault? Nothing.

F4GIB

December 30, 2007, 04:05 PM

I have to admit that I don't even know any hunting boards to visit. But many of you do.

Why not repost the OP on those Boards and see if you can wake up some of their readers?

ROMAK IV

December 30, 2007, 05:14 PM

I don't think the problem is "buzz words", it's the ignorance of the public. Creating new terminology just creates more confusion. A high capacity magazine isn't evil, it is a big plus in a defensive gun use. After all, why would the police use them,(high capacity magazines) if they were only useful for a evil purpose. After all, if you are intent upon shooting innocent and unarmed victims, changing the magazine after each ten shots isn't going to affect you that much, while the same situation in a defensive gunfight, is likely to get you killed. Purdy, the man whose crime of shooting school children in Stockton California was used as an excuse to pass California's Assault Weapons Ban, shot the kids in such a liesurely rate, the high capacity magazine was irrelevant to the successful commision of the crime. Purdy had killed himself, after expending his ammunition long before the police arrived. Of course, they passed it anyway.

And the Brady's war against Hunting Rilfes is far from new. Former Senator Markey and Ted Kennedy have been taking turns introducing legislation to outlaw ammunition that is capable of penetrating police armor, (95% of rifle ammunition) for the past 20 years I would estimate. The current ban on armor-piercing pistol ammunition was written by the NRA for that very reason. In fact, I would consider the ban on the sale of 308AP, is an abuse of that law, since 308 handguns would probably never be used in a crime.

I also doubt that there are that many hunters, that don't know they are targets of the Bradys. I am sure that they exist, but I don't know any. I believe that people like Zumbo, make disparaging remarks against recreational/defensive shooters because they believe the hype. I think it's like the proverbial story of two hunters being chased by a bear where the one shoots his partner in the leg so, he can save himself.There is nothing unconstitutional about regulating hunting, so hunters tend to accept just about any restriction that comes along.

G36-UK

December 30, 2007, 07:28 PM

How about "Standard Capacity" for normal-sized magazines, and "Enhanced Capacity" for anything bigger?

Sounds a bit crappy, I know.

Zoogster

December 30, 2007, 07:57 PM

I've used "Homeland Defense Rifle," and "Evil Black Rifle," but I am stuck for one for "high capacity maganzine." They hold what they hold.

Actualy high capacity is an old term, that predates the brady's and refered to large drums, like those used on the thompson.
Some laws even gave the legal definition of high capacity in those terms.

20 and 30 round magazines were considered standard, and drums like what the beta c mag were considered high capacity.

How things have changed that even people who consider themselves pro gun consider more than 10 rounds "high capacity."

20-30 round magazines are standard capacity if the firearm they were made for was originaly intended to use 20-30 round magazines.

If a handgun was originaly designed to use 15 round magazines then that is standard capacity for that firearm. Large capacity would be magazines that grossly stick out of the bottom of the pistol grip, obviously protruding far beyond the original dimensions of the firearm.
High capacity would be drums holding near 100 rounds that plug into the bottom.

Eric F

December 30, 2007, 08:07 PM

If a handgun was originaly designed to use 15 round magazines then that is standard capacity for that firearm. Large capacity would be magazines that grossly stick out of the bottom of the pistol grip

So according to this thinking my dawson +2 base pads do not mape my p-12 limmited into a 14 round mag however it only ads about 1/3 inch to the mag is not a high cap mag? Sorry I have known both durring and after the ban highcap for pistiol is generally more than 10 rounds and it does not make me irresponsible, anti gun, uninformed, or lending the hint of ok to the anti group.

Why are we trying to hide the truth of the matter call it as it is. the play on word game goes on and on and no one can win so it is a waist of time and energy:banghead:

Zoogster

December 30, 2007, 08:28 PM

So according to this thinking my dawson +2 base pads do not mape my p-12 limmited into a 14 round mag however it only ads about 1/3 inch to the mag is not a high cap mag? Sorry I have known both durring and after the ban highcap for pistiol is generally more than 10 rounds and it does not make me irresponsible, anti gun, uninformed, or lending the hint of ok to the anti group.

Then you are not going back far enough, limiting yourself to around the time of the original federal ban.

Pistols holding over 10 rounds were not very common prior to autos becoming the standard. Even most GI 1911s held less.
Those were the days of revolvers.

However it was very common in rifles and carbines. They were never considered high capacity unless they were large drums. Standard capacity for a AR for example is 20-30 rounds. Using a 10 or 5 round magazine is well under standard capacity and would be substandard capacity.

Standard capacity for the m1918 BAR was 20 rounds.
Standard capacity for the Thompson Submachinegun was 20-30 round box magazines. High capacity was the 50-100 round drums.
The standard capacity of the M14 or M1A is 20-30 rounds.
The standard capacity of the AR15 or M16 is 20-30 rounds.
The list goes on and on.

The standard capacity of most modern rifles intended for medium to short range use is 20-30 rounds. Less is substandard capacity, and more is large or high capacity.
It is not a fixed number, it fluctuates depending on the firearm and the type of magazine it was designed to function with in the role it is intended for.

Grizzly Adams

December 30, 2007, 08:31 PM

I understand what the Brady people are trying to do. But misinformation and demagogue pleas are not going to benefit their cause in the long run.

The Brady people and Handgun Inc. and all the rest of the antis don't deal in fact and they aren't trying to sway the people that do deal in fact or look below the surface to find the fact. They cater to the naiveté who knows nothing about guns or only knows what their favorite tv personality tells them. Or that don't have the ability or are to lazy to think for themselves.

If they can convince these people that what they are saying is the truth, then with others that they already have on their side, they just possibly may have the leverage they need to push more anti-gun legistation through.

This being said, I am sad to say that this "misinformation and demagogue" will benefit their cause.

antsi

December 30, 2007, 08:50 PM

I don't think the problem is "buzz words", it's the ignorance of the public.

I believe this is correct. If I suddenly started trying to ban cars by re-naming them "multi-ton people-crushing collision devices," people would just laugh. They know cars and are familiar with cars, so a propagandistic attempt to re-define them would be seen for what it is. Most of the public is quite ignorant of guns, though, and thus more susceptible to nonsense.

I also doubt that there are that many hunters, that don't know they are targets of the Bradys. I am sure that they exist, but I don't know any. {snip} I think it's like the proverbial story of two hunters being chased by a bear where the one shoots his partner in the leg so, he can save himself.

There is an element of self-delusion here. There is so much negative propaganda about guns out there, lots of casual or infrequent gun owners/users don't want to feel targeted in that way. They don't want to identify themselves, even internally, with a group that is being painted as evil.

Therefore, if the anti's are seeming to give them a pass - "we won't come after you hunters; we're only after the evil black rifle types," they will often take the bait.

Churchill said something like this about the Western democracies in the years leading up to WWII. He compared them to a bunch of men in a cage with an alligator (or was it a lion?), making underhanded arrangements as to whom they're going to feed to the alligator next. Each one just wants to make sure it's someone else who gets fed to the alligator.

It is a bit cowardly, but it is human nature. At the same time they were colluding to hand over the Czechs and such to the Nazis, they were comforting themselves with the delusion that Hitler would be satisfied after swallowing up whomever he was currently attacking, and he wouldn't come after them next.

On some level, they must have known that this was just a comforting self-delusion, but on some other level they wanted to believe it was true and believe they could make themselves safe by pandering to alligator.

I was in a hunting cabin with a group of guys just after that Hmoung guy went rodeo in Wisconsin. They kept calling the SKS an 'assault rifle.' It was almost like an incantation: a magical belief that we're not like that because our rifles are different somehow.

Hitler was a genius about exploiting people psychologically, preying on their weaknesses; dividing and conquering. That is exactly the same tactics the Bradys are using when they go for an 'assault weapons' ban or a handgun ban or an 'armor piercing' ban. They are trying to carve out just one slice of gun owners to persecute, figuring that all the other gun owners will step back out of the way and let it happen. Then they can go after the next slice.

It is a very clever strategy, and often very effective.

The answer, of course, is to recognize that an attack on anyone's gun this week will turn into an attack on someone else's gun next week.

230RN

December 31, 2007, 12:18 AM

Very good on an individual FTF basis, Robert Hairless. (Post #20, page 1.)

But my concern is with how we can counter it "out there?" What strategies can we use? What alternatives to these terms can we present...

....out there?

I understand your frustration with me "ceding" the use of these negatively-loaded terms to the antis, but the reality is that in many respects we have to cede to the the reality itself. Specifying number of rounds only and challenging individuals on their definition is fine, but that technique covers only the six square feet on which you (or jtf in post #24, for example) and the other party are standing.

And jtf can "call someone out" for somehow "ceding" the use of these terms, but that isn't going to solve the problem.

Example: Now that the term "Rambo Knife*" has been introduced in Canada, how can we defuse the negative connotation ... out there?

OK, so I won't use the term "Rambo Knife" and therefore I won't be seen as "ceding" its use by jtf. But that does not solve the problem!

Like it or not, ignore it or not, tutelage on a person-to person basis or not, part of our battle is semantic.

And why do we always have to be reactive?

Surely, with all our collective concern about "tactics" in the strategic sense, and all the military thinkers we have on board, why can't we develop a general method, strategy, counter, what have you, to these semantic attacks? You suggest that it's impossible, but I don't believe in impossibilities.

Maybe we need a "Desert Fox" to think beyond the next dune.

I've done the best I could in trying to point out that it matters not what we don't do or don't say.

What matters is what we can do to address the realities.... "out there."

--------
* American Rifleman Jan 2008 p 24.

Savage92

December 31, 2007, 01:20 AM

I wonder how many of these "armor piercing" rifles would be used on the people trying to confiscate them?

worthirt_99

December 31, 2007, 01:32 AM

Aww crap, now they're going after sniper rifles. It was one thing when I was able to purchase AWs, but sniper rifles are expensive. I guess I could always buy an SKS and put a scope on it...
Last I checked, the SKS was one of the "Evil" rifles too.

TexasSkyhawk

December 31, 2007, 01:33 AM

What I propose as a gun owner and enthusiasts, is when ever you hear these things being used correct the person using them and explain that the media and the brady campaign use things like this to forward an anti-gun/ anti-freedom agenda.

Not me. Never.

You could call a Ruger 10/22 turnip greens and the antis would still demonize it and the media would hyperbolize it.

First they want my guns and then some within my own gun community want me to pacify these buttwipes by changing the way I describe my firearms???

Again. Not me. Never. No way in hell ever.

I don't own one single assault weapon. And I tell that to the stinking antis. I do, however, own a Mini-14, an SKS, an AK, a Colt AR and a few others. They are not, repeat, NOT assault weapons. I also tell the stinking antis that unlike them, I have USED real assault weapons and what I have in the Browning safe ain't assault weapons.

High capacity magazines? They are what they are and thus that is what I call them.

I am not "politically correct" and have zero intentions of even trying to be. To me, PC is just an amorphism for "phony." A gun is what is is. A hunter is what he/she is. A magazine is what it is.

As far as the antis, I am not of a mind to change or alter my ways in order to not piss them off or frighten them or appease them. Period. We've already seen that the more we give, the more they want to take.

To hell with them.

Jeff

bsf

December 31, 2007, 01:41 AM

Brady Campaign calls for ban on HUNTING ammunition.
Sounds like a good plan to me. I have enough to last a long, long time. Might prompt some to wake up and smell the coffee.

Fudd Y - “What was made illegal? What the f**k are you talking about?”

Fudd X - “Yeh, the president signed the bill yesterday.”

Fudd Y - “Bullsh**! You’re full of it.”

Fudd X – “Are you freekin deaf. Are you not hearing the words coming out of my mouth? All rifle ammunition of greater than .222 caliber has been banned from civilian sales in the US, except ammo already made.”

Fudd Y – “No way. That cannot happen. Those politicians cannot stop me from hunting. The Second Amendment says I have a ‘right’ to hunt.”

Fudd X – “You’re an idiot. Read the f**king newspaper or watch the news you moron”.

Fudd Y – “You’re not bullsh**ing me? C’mon. No f**king way. No way!”

Fudd X – “For the last time; no I am not messing with you. It is a done deal. Those dam’d crooked politicians. It is the Union’s fault. They told us to vote for those Democrats or the Republican’s would send all our jobs oversees and get rid of overtime pay. Both our senators, that ugly wench Stabenow and that Lenin guy voted for it.”

Fudd Y – “This is bullsh**. They cannot do this. Those sonab**ches. This is why I never vote. Those a**holes can never be trusted. What about reloading? Yeh, I will just reload. They can’t stop me from hunting.”

Fudd X – “Bullets larger than .222 are banned too. This pi**es me off. Dammit! I cannot believe the NRA allowed this. They are all a bunch of crooks too. Hell, I was even a member a couple times. I quit because I got sick of all the junk mail they sent me.”

Bla bla bla bla bla bla………………

illspirit

December 31, 2007, 01:46 AM

How about if we refer to magazines by how much it costs to fill them? Any standard issue mag (EG, 20 or 30 for an AR, 17 for a Glock) would just be a "magazine." The silly 10rd ban-era mags would then be a "budget magazine." And then the larger ones (100rd Beta C or a 33rd G18 type) would be "deluxe" or "luxury" mags. :p

But, yea, as others have pointed out, letting them control the language has given them a slight edge in the debate. Taking words back so they mean things again would be nice, however at this point it might be rather difficult, as they have talking points for everything.

"Saturday Night Specials" are pretty much any small handgun.
"Assault pistols" seem to be all handgun larger than the above.

"Assault rifles/weapons" are rifles with pistol grips.
"Sniper rifles" are all rifles without pistol grips.

.22 and smaller calibers are all "stealthy assassin rounds" or something.
.223 and larger calibers are all "high-powered cop-killers."

Now it seems all FMJ ammo is allegedly "armor piercing."
And of course everything that's not FMJ is an eeeevil "exploding bullet" of some sort.

If we use their definitions, it doesn't really leave us with much, now, does it?

mike101

December 31, 2007, 02:02 AM

"But, yea, as others have pointed out, letting them control the language has given them a slight edge in the debate."

They have an "edge"? Not hardly. Follow this blog over to Huffington Post, and check out the 128 comments (about 120 from our side). The RKBA kicked butt, as always. :D

Thanks to all who signed on over there and helped out. Don't be strangers.

Savage92

December 31, 2007, 12:46 PM

Would the 223 Rem go through body armor? What centerfire cartridge wouldn't go through body armor, a 45/70, 22 Hornet?

NG VI

December 31, 2007, 01:27 PM

sickening and frightening, i'm trying to correct my girl's way of thinking, which is that guns should only be possessed by .gov employees for official buysiness, it's tough cause i can't figure out what's wrong with her... course she does just about worship the clintons...

i'm going to go be violently ill

OhioPaints

December 31, 2007, 01:35 PM

sickening and frightening, i'm trying to correct my girl's way of thinking, which is that guns should only be possessed by .gov employees for official buysiness, it's tough cause i can't figure out what's wrong with her... course she does just about worship the clintons...

I think most people like this believe that all guns could be removed from society and therefore gun violence would end. That makes sense to a lot of people (tyranical governments not withstanding). The problem with the line of thought is that guns will only be removed from the law abiding (soon to become victims) while the criminals will continue to possess and use them. Have you pointed out to her what has happened in Brittan and Austrialia where they banned guns and the crime rates went up, especially gun violence?

22-rimfire

December 31, 2007, 01:41 PM

While I have no doubt that HandgunControl Inc and the Brady folks want to make body armor penetrating ammunition illegal, the Brady article does not say that at all.
Perhaps even more shocking, the type of bullet many assault weapons fire (7.62mm full metal jacket) can penetrate four categories of police body armor [pdf]. There is no legitimate reason the public should have this kind of access to military-style assault weapons."

It said "... access to military-style assault weapons." Not ammunition.

All folks that own firearms should work to preserve our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Armoredman, I'm sure Mr. Zumbo knows all about the effort to restrict 2A rights and his interest is not only "hunting rifles" as you hint. I doubt Mr. Zumbo has many "bolt action only" buddies. They probably own an assortment of firearms in different action types just like most of the rest of us.

As mentioned, the talk needs to shift from the tool to the person using the tool for criminal purposes. There are many ways to harm large numbers of people and it does not take a gun to do it. It takes a NUT intent on committing a major crime with knowledge to pull it off.

TAB

December 31, 2007, 02:13 PM

I don't think there is a modern centerfire rifle cartridge that won't pentrait level 1 body armor.

Axctal

December 31, 2007, 05:48 PM

Guys, there is a Trojan Horse in this kind of argument.
Let's see ... there is an opponent in a debate and he is strongly against you. Naturally you want to refute their arguments, especially if it seems like they are promoting their agenda. But it is a bait in a game and refuting it would later put you in position contradictorary to your own bigger goal/claim.

Let me explain:
They say: "Cop-Killer-Bullets"
You are trying to refute this.
They go into "we thought you were saying 2A is for the purpose of potential resistance of your own tyrannical government" kind of gambit.
Now you in position where your refutal of "cop-killer-bullets" contradicts your own statement of 2A ("it is not about hunting") and they call you a liar.

Interesting, right?
Defending from miriads of whatewer catch-words / phrases they have or might invent is a chimera-hunting. They will send more your way. You need to strike a source instead of fighting the "tentacles".

They say "cop-killer-bullet"
You say "I am glad our guys DID have a COP-KILLER-BULLETS in 17xx. The very purpose of 2A is to have COP-KILLER-WEAPONS and COP-KILLER-BULLETS, so you can have tools to resist tyrannical government should such time come"

mekender

December 31, 2007, 07:02 PM

sickening and frightening, i'm trying to correct my girl's way of thinking, which is that guns should only be possessed by .gov employees for official buysiness, it's tough cause i can't figure out what's wrong with her... course she does just about worship the clintons...

sounds like 2 reasons to find a new girl...

akodo

December 31, 2007, 07:22 PM

Let me explain:
They say: "Cop-Killer-Bullets"
You are trying to refute this.
They go into "we thought you were saying 2A is for the purpose of potential resistance of your own tyrannical government" kind of gambit.
Now you in position where your refutal of "cop-killer-bullets" contradicts your own statement of 2A ("it is not about hunting") and they call you a liar.

here's how you run it.

Say "Cop killer bullets! what kind of made up term is that! How do you define it, aside from bullets that have actually killed cops?"

They will of course say assualt rifle stuff, guns made to peirce armor, etc.

this can lead to "Oh, okay, if the INTENT OF THE BULLET DESIGNER is to punch through armor, that is bad but if IF IT CAN PUNCH THROUGH ARMOR ANYWAYS, that is okay?" then roll into

"Some folk say the 2nd amendment is about muskets. Hell, a musket ball can rip through some of the 'bullet proof vests' our cops are issued. Did you know that the ammo used in an M-16 by our troops over in Iraq is considered too weak to reliably kill whitetail deer in many states, and it is illegal to use it, you have to use something more powerful...like say the 30-06, which is 100 years old, and can blast through the best military or police armor right now, so you plan on eliminating ALL hunting guns too?

Put them on the defensive by spelling out exactly what they are trying to do. Don't say "This will cause X (hunting guns to be outlawed)" say "Hey, what do you have against hunting, why are you outlawing hunting guns?"

ROMAK IV

January 1, 2008, 01:52 AM

Again, it is too late to take back the words, you have to educate the public. Guns Kill! Of course they do! What use is a gun that doesn't kill? Those evil assault Weapons! They're not evil, no inanimate object is evil. We want the guys in the white hats to have the guns, not the guys with the black hats. Actual assault weapons and those firearms called Assault weapons have characteristics that make them especially useful as defensive weapon, hopefully the only use, besides fun that they have. It is important in a defensive firearm, to have one that is semiautomatic, or self reloading. In a defensive firearm, it is important to have sufficient ammunition capacity for every or nearly every situation. In a defensive firearm, it is important to have a pistol grip to have secure control and retention of the fire arm. In a defensive firearm, it is important to have a muzze brake or a flash suppressor to reduce recoil and maintain better control of the weaopn and to reduce muzzle flash so the defender isn't temporarily blinded by use of the firearm. I could go on, a supressor can would help in defensive use as potentially having a select fire capability. Snipers are usually a good thing to have on your side. Police snipers save countless lives each year. Military snipers help reduce casualties among friendly troops. Snipers that are good far outnumber snipers that are bad, and criminal"sniping" is extremely rare in the United States. As defined by Major Plaster, USA, a sniper rifle is a rifle capable of at least 1 MOA accuracy. What is wrong with an accurate rifle? Do we want hunters missing or just wounding animals? Do we want police snipers missing perps? Cop killer bullets? A bullet just sits there, it is useless without a cartridge powder and a suitable rifle. To ban cartridges capable of pentrating vests would effctively ban hunting. Would you want to use guns with ammunition incapable of taking the particular game animal you are trying to hunt? Would you want a gun that wouldn't stop an attacker?

Not all of the Brady code words catch on. for the ones that do, we need to make them "nice".

UnknownSailor

January 1, 2008, 07:14 AM

Call magazines made during the 10 years the magazine restrictions of the 1994 Crime Bill were in effect exactly what they are: Clinton magazines.

Eric F

January 1, 2008, 08:02 AM

this whole thread has made me think on my day off. and I have decided that when confronted with this "terminology war" I will say this..........you want to ban guns and ammunition right? Well Drunk drivers kill more folks than guns and I dont see a big political campeign to out law alcohol.

just as a note I do not agree with most of the terms by the anti crowd ie assault weapons cop killer-anything ect
however in the shooting community just for pistols it is easier to say "10 rounder" and /or "high-cap" verses "insert words" and/or "insert words"

IA_farmboy

January 1, 2008, 02:59 PM

Well Drunk drivers kill more folks than guns and I dont see a big political campeign to out law alcohol.

That's because it was tried and failed. Alcohol was outlawed and we had crime grow out of control. I still have hope that people will wake up and make the same realization with firearms and certain "controlled substances".

Firearms are only a danger when in the hands of a criminal. Criminals have no respect for law. Law abiding citizens lose respect for law when it lacks logic and puts them at risk, therefore turning law abiding citizens into criminals. Gun control, alcohol prohibition, and drug control all create a disdain for law.

If you want to ban ammunition that pierces armor it helps if you define what is meant by "armor". Some people start to define armor as something that rolls on tracks. If you want to ban 120 mm smoothbore weapons then I'm fine with that, just so long as I get to have an 88 mm.

Eric F

January 1, 2008, 04:35 PM

That's because it was tried and failed

AH HA!the same arguement that an anti would bring up. Gun bans didnt work either that is why there is not one anymore(out side of the nfa anyway). Every hicap mag and so called assault weapon I ever purchased was during that silly ban that ran out because it did not work!

If you enjoyed reading about "Brady Campaign calls for ban on HUNTING ammunition." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!